Why do Balloons filled with Air not fall at 9.6m/s/s?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Salbris
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Air Fall
AI Thread Summary
Balloons filled with air do not fall at the expected rate due to the properties of buoyancy and terminal velocity. When a balloon is inflated with breath, it contains a gas mixture similar to the surrounding air, with only a slight increase in carbon dioxide. The weight difference is minimal, and the large surface area of the balloon contributes to a low terminal velocity, causing it to descend slowly. This means that the buoyancy effect is not solely dependent on the gas being lighter than the surrounding air. Understanding these principles clarifies why the balloon behaves as it does in the atmosphere.
Salbris
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
I've been racking my brain to figure this one out, I really don't understand it.

If you fill a balloon with air from your lungs, just manually blow it up, it should be carbon dioxide, no?

Density of Carbon Dioxide at Sea Level: 1.977 g/L
Density of Air at Sea Level: 1.2 g/L

So it's heavier. I know I'm pulling these numbers out of seemingly nowhere, but I'm sure someone can verify they are accurate.


So why on Earth would a balloon filled with a gas heavier than the surrounding gas in it's environment not drop at the normal speed. Aren't I right to think that bouyancy only takes effect when the gas inside the balloon is at least a bit lighter?

Or is there some critical property I'm missing?

Please enlighten me, thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you recall that Gallileo dropped a feather off the Tower of Pisa, as well as a 1 pound weight and a ten pound weight:
http://www.jimloy.com/physics/galileo.htm
Astronauts tried Gallileo's experiment on the moon. See:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you fill a balloon up with your breath it would be mostly nitrogen just like the air you breathed in.

Also, with a density so close to that of the air it is prone to the slightest disturbances from the air.
 
Salbris said:
I've been racking my brain to figure this one out, I really don't understand it.

If you fill a balloon with air from your lungs, just manually blow it up, it should be carbon dioxide, no?

Density of Carbon Dioxide at Sea Level: 1.977 g/L
Density of Air at Sea Level: 1.2 g/L

So it's heavier. I know I'm pulling these numbers out of seemingly nowhere, but I'm sure someone can verify they are accurate.


So why on Earth would a balloon filled with a gas heavier than the surrounding gas in it's environment not drop at the normal speed. Aren't I right to think that bouyancy only takes effect when the gas inside the balloon is at least a bit lighter?

Or is there some critical property I'm missing?

Please enlighten me, thank you.
1] As pointed out, your exhaled breath is almost exactly the same as the air. It has an extra 5% CO2 and is shy by the same amount of oxygen.

2] You've got a volume of air, that weighs maybe a gram or two more than the surrounding air, but it has a giant surface area. It's terminal velocity is on the order of a few feet per second.
 
DaveC426913 said:
1] As pointed out, your exhaled breath is almost exactly the same as the air. It has an extra 5% CO2 and is shy by the same amount of oxygen.

2] You've got a volume of air, that weighs maybe a gram or two more than the surrounding air, but it has a giant surface area. It's terminal velocity is on the order of a few feet per second.

Ahh, Terminal Velocity. Now that makes sense. :)

Thanks for pointing that out.
 
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top